Idle thoughts about an iPhone Mini

I started thinking about this question: What phone do you need if you're almost always carrying an iPad? I don't think that that phone is an iPhone 5. The phone you need is small, light, and doesn't require much computing power or memory. This imagined iPhone is either an adjunct to another device or for light users. Any heavy lifting--extended surfing or video viewing--is done on the iPad. If Apple made an iPhone with

i. a A5x processor (or something small and low power, but would need sufficient power for games),ii. a lightning connector,iii. memory limited to 16 or 32GB,iv. a smaller battery that would be predicated on the idea that the phone wouldn't be surfing the web all day--maybe 5 hours of run time,v. a 3.5" 3:2 retina display using the new thinner process,vi. 4G,

could the phone be different enough from the iPhone 5 to justify a new product? I think that a new product could be justified if the overall phone is featherweight and thin. This product would replace the iPhone 4 and 4S, and would end sales of Dock Connector devices (except for the iPod classic?).

In the US, there's no advantage in such a phone having a price below $500, because that's basically the $0 down price limit with a smart phone contract. At this price point, I think Apple has a lot of money to spend on miniaturization to make this product different. This isn't a cheap phone (to use Phil Schiller's term); it's a light phone.

Chances are pretty much zero that we'll see an iPhone mini. In case you haven't noticed, the trend now is for phones to get bigger, not smaller. Everyone I know who's changed their phone in the last year has gone with bigger screens, mostly the Samsung Galaxy Tab and Note.

Just get rid of the enormous forehead and chin and keep the screen the same size. That's how phones that are barely bigger in the external dimensions have a screen diagonal that sounds outrageously bigger.

There is no advantage to having >$500 for us consumers, but there is for us carriers. They make more money off each contact, so can will push the phone harder.

I doubt that carrier marketing has a substantial impact on Apple sales. Apple can sell good products, with or without help from the carriers.

mister__big wrote:

Chances are pretty much zero that we'll see an iPhone mini. In case you haven't noticed, the trend now is for phones to get bigger, not smaller. Everyone I know who's changed their phone in the last year has gone with bigger screens, mostly the Samsung Galaxy Tab and Note.

We will see an iPhone with a 5" screen before we see a 3" one.

It's true that smart phone screens are getting bigger, but my main point is that that's a trend that doesn't make sense for people who carry tablets. I don't think that a 3" screen is coming, because nothing will work right. 3.5" 3:2 is the screen size of the 4 and 4S.

Well, Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone as a combination of a phone, an iPod and an internet device. Get rid of the internet stuff and you're left with a phone/iPod combo. Such a device would be useful to people who don't want to pay for data and could be smaller and cheaper.

Obviously it wouldn't need 4G, and I think such a device only makes sense if it doesn't run any apps and thus doesn't need much CPU or RAM. But I'm thinking that an appless device would be a hard sell these days.

Connectivity and access to datas is the future, it has to be and will be cheaper. You don't necessary need to remove the internet stuff, but use a specific interface to access datas if the screen can't be that interface. Different from a (mobile) web browser, like connected apps already are on smartphones.

Lots of people are fine with dumb-phones, they don't want to carry a big device, they don't need 99% of apps as they transport their phone, or they can have them on an iPod Touch and/or their iPad/tablet.

Touch screens are great but they imply a large screen (a 3.5" 3:2 screen is already large) as soon as you need to offer a wide range of usage as with smartphones and apps.Abandoning the "smart" part drives to diminish the importance of a large screen and then allow to make a small device, but you can't remove completely the screen interactions.

But if a service like Siri improves more, it could solve part of the problem.

Imagine a small device with a small ~3" 16:9 touch screen (or see the new iPod nano at 2.5"). No 3rd party apps, the screen is too small to expect to concretely do anything.Calendar, Reminders, Notes, Mail, Contacts, SMS, Phone calls, iPod, all interactions are made through an improved Siri + minimal touch screen interaction when necessary.

Apple would have a cheaper price point entry to their world with still the iPhone brand with a not-so-dumb-phone.

Future improvements on Siri could be keys for making it possible (more languages, more reliable, more capabilities).

No fragmentation, only segmentation.

daGUY wrote:

The problem with that is that Siri requires a network connection. So if that's going to be your primary interface for the device, it will have to have a cellular connection, which will require a data plan, which basically puts it in smartphone pricing territory since the service is the real cost of the device (the iPhone 4 is now free on contract). So that doesn't really work for the market the iPod Nano is aimed at.

chleuasme wrote:

No no no, I was talking about a Phone, not an iPod. So, permanent connection. The nano example was to visualize better.

And with a touchscreen, while Siri could be an important interface for the user, you'd still have, as I said, screen interactions if necessary.And so, for example your adress book for calls or an alphanumeric old-school 12 keys phone touch keyboard, if you can't/don't want to use Siri.

Well, it's completely disconnected from reality, i have no clue if 3G or LTE antennas and chips could fit in such a small device I described, and same with batteries to go with ...

In France, we have 20 euros per month contracts for unlimited international calls/texts/datas (only 3G, and slowed down after 3GB used). Why would you even consider datas as a smartphone-only thing?With such contracts we though have to bring our phone, so you pay full price to get an iPhone. Not subsidized price at, say, max 300$ (and less for 2 years contracts) could make such an hypothetical siriPhone attracting for who doesn't want a big too-smart-phone.

And one can imagine an appstore for this phone with apps only with minimal touch UI on one screen and embedding add-ons for Siri.Well, give it 10 years (?)

I just don't see demand for smaller smartphones at the moment. Cheaper, yes. I think Apple may sell a "developing world only" iPhone with a TN screen and the internals of an iPhone 4. Basically a third-gen iPod touch with a phone radio added. I think they could get such a device under $200 unsubsidized while making a profit.

As to the OP's question, what the perpetual iPad-carrier needs is really to be able to use the iPad as a phone.

This is about the Asian market not the US market, although I'm sure there are folks in the US who'd buy it (assuming Apple even offers it here)

Contracts are flat, prepaid is booming. If it was ever true that you couldn't save money due to subsidies that you paid for whether you used them or not, it's not anymore. It definitely matters for the US.

The iPhone Mini will not be a little iPhone, it will be an iPad Mini with the phone app built in.

I just had a thought. A smaller iPhone that docks with an iPad like device. Need to use the phone for a call, slide it out from the iPad. Tether the two devices with Bluetooth, so you can talk with someone (not using speakerphone), while working on the bigger screen. End up with longer battery life on the phone, as it recharges via the batteries in the iPad. Slide it back in, and you've got an iPad with 4G service.

The downside to Apple is that they destroy the idea of selling you BOTH an iPhone and iPad, in favor of just one device.

I am arguing for a different type of product than ClarkGoble & dal20402. They want a cheaper phone, suitable for sale in the developing world. I want an not-so-inexpensive phone, suitable for people who rarely use there phones (me) and people who don't need their phones to be substitute computers. And I want it to look sleek and attractive more than I want it to be cheap. I think that my product plays to Apple's strengths.

I want an not-so-inexpensive phone, suitable for people who rarely use there phones (me) and people who don't need their phones to be substitute computers. And I want it to look sleek and attractive more than I want it to be cheap. I think that my product plays to Apple's strengths.

What I am saying is that I don't think there is a market for that type of phone with the sort of volume that Apple typically seeks for first-line hardware products.

The high end has thoroughly absorbed the "bigger is better" mentality. A few people are resisting that and asking for smaller phones, but not very many.

I just don't see demand for smaller smartphones at the moment. Cheaper, yes. I think Apple may sell a "developing world only" iPhone with a TN screen and the internals of an iPhone 4. Basically a third-gen iPod touch with a phone radio added. I think they could get such a device under $200 unsubsidized while making a profit.

As to the OP's question, what the perpetual iPad-carrier needs is really to be able to use the iPad as a phone.

What I see is that people get whatever the market is feeding them with. If the trend tomorrow is small is beautiful, then people will want it. I own a sony ericsson xperia ray, with a very nice 3" screen and I love the form factor. The price was also part of my decision ... If Apple has offered me an iPhone this small at that price, I would have happily go with it. But of course that's just me

I am arguing for a different type of product than ClarkGoble & dal20402. They want a cheaper phone, suitable for sale in the developing world. I want an not-so-inexpensive phone, suitable for people who rarely use there phones (me) and people who don't need their phones to be substitute computers. And I want it to look sleek and attractive more than I want it to be cheap. I think that my product plays to Apple's strengths.

I think the problem is that the US market is so controlled by subsidies that people aren't that price conscious. I recognize that in much of the rest of the world that isn't as true. However if it's just a matter of cheapness then frankly last year's model works just as well in terms of price point. If you're talking about a non-smart phone but something more akin to where the Nano is/was in the iPod market then I think we'll end up with something smaller and cheaper. The question is whether it can run apps. While it's possible Apple would introduce a non-smart phone I think they will get it.

I think the problem is that the US market is so controlled by subsidies that people aren't that price conscious.

Smartphone subscriber growth in the US is almost entirely driven by prepaid, the link gives 0% YoY growth for postpaid and 91% YoY growth for prepaid. Postpaid/contract subscribers have been flat for a while, and Android overwhelmingly dominates prepaid in the US just like it does prepaid everywhere else. You could make an argument that postpaid is actually hemorrhaging customers everywhere except new iPhone customers (probably some truth to that), but that would be slap counter to the "controlled by subsidies" hypothesis since it implies a lot of mobility to prepaid plans.

I think the problem is that the US market is so controlled by subsidies that people aren't that price conscious.

Smartphone subscriber growth in the US is almost entirely driven by prepaid, the link gives 0% YoY growth for postpaid and 91% YoY growth for prepaid. Postpaid/contract subscribers have been flat for a while, and Android overwhelmingly dominates prepaid in the US just like it does prepaid everywhere else. You could make an argument that postpaid is actually hemorrhaging customers everywhere except new iPhone customers (probably some truth to that), but that would be slap counter to the "controlled by subsidies" hypothesis since it implies a lot of mobility to prepaid plans.

The linked article uses percentages to make a questionable point. Total increase in smart phones is 9%; pre-paid is flat; and post-paid is up 91%. That makes the market share of post-paid phones around 10%. It's not clear whether people who have contracts are moving to the post-paid market or whether that represents new, likely lower income, customers entering the smart phone market. If I were Apple, I don't know that I'd want to address 10% of the market, when I doing a pretty good job addressing 90% of the market. This is obviously a US-centric view of the market.

The linked article uses percentages to make a questionable point. Total increase in smart phones is 9%; post-paid is flat; and pre-paid is up 91%. That makes the market share of pre-paid phones around 10%. It's not clear whether people who have contracts are moving to the pre-paid market or whether that represents new, likely lower income, customers entering the smart phone market.

I'm sure it's both, but when you've got $30/mo smartphone plans that don't leave you feeling like you're missing anything and most smartphone customers are spending anywhere from $60/mo to something over a hundred, you're going to have people of all incomes making the switch. That's a pretty big difference.

You may still save money with a plan that cheap even if you're buying a full up iPhone 5, but the price difference is no longer hidden, so cheaper phones from other manufacturers actually are cheaper all of a sudden.

The linked article uses percentages to make a questionable point. Total increase in smart phones is 9%; post-paid is flat; and pre-paid is up 91%. That makes the market share of pre-paid phones around 10%. It's not clear whether people who have contracts are moving to the pre-paid market or whether that represents new, likely lower income, customers entering the smart phone market.

I'm sure it's both, but when you've got $30/mo smartphone plans that don't leave you feeling like you're missing anything and most smartphone customers are spending anywhere from $60/mo to something over a hundred, you're going to have people of all incomes making the switch. That's a pretty big difference.

You may still save money with a plan that cheap even if you're buying a full up iPhone 5, but the price difference is no longer hidden, so cheaper phones from other manufacturers actually are cheaper all of a sudden.

Using your numbers, over two years a customer would save $720, most or all of which would go for the phone. In the US the customer would be mostly locked in regardless, because of the standards issues. The real savings comes after 24 months, when the contract telecom plans keep charging. I am not sure about your numbers, however. AFAIK, Verizon isn't offering their cheap plan any more, and ATT's cheapest plan is $70/mo (not counting their 0.3GB data plan as a serious offering). I don't know anything about the non-contract numbers.

All they need to do is re-case the 3GS. It's a perfectly good phone, all they need to do is update the case.

Heck, I prefer the 3GS to the 4, only exception is the Retina display. The 3GS is more comfortable to use, and doesn't tend to slide about as much as the 4.

I was thinking something similar. Put the guts of the 4S, with a process-shrunk A5 and a lightning connector, in a case derived from the 3GS and you'd have a very compelling product that is fairly cheap and easy to manufacture by iPhone standards.

All they need to do is re-case the 3GS. It's a perfectly good phone, all they need to do is update the case.

Heck, I prefer the 3GS to the 4, only exception is the Retina display. The 3GS is more comfortable to use, and doesn't tend to slide about as much as the 4.

I was thinking something similar. Put the guts of the 4S, with a process-shrunk A5 and a lightning connector, in a case derived from the 3GS and you'd have a very compelling product that is fairly cheap and easy to manufacture by iPhone standards.

I don't think that Apple will update an old phone into a new product. I think a non-retina display would be a step backwards and would clearly brand the product as a cheap phone. I don't disagree with the 4S processing power (which runs a retina display) you propose, which I would package with 4G connectivity.

I think the problem is that the US market is so controlled by subsidies that people aren't that price conscious.

Smartphone subscriber growth in the US is almost entirely driven by prepaid, the link gives 0% YoY growth for postpaid and 91% YoY growth for prepaid. Postpaid/contract subscribers have been flat for a while, and Android overwhelmingly dominates prepaid in the US just like it does prepaid everywhere else. You could make an argument that postpaid is actually hemorrhaging customers everywhere except new iPhone customers (probably some truth to that), but that would be slap counter to the "controlled by subsidies" hypothesis since it implies a lot of mobility to prepaid plans.

The linked article uses percentages to make a questionable point. Total increase in smart phones is 9%; pre-paid is flat; and post-paid is up 91%. That makes the market share of post-paid phones around 10%. It's not clear whether people who have contracts are moving to the post-paid market or whether that represents new, likely lower income, customers entering the smart phone market. If I were Apple, I don't know that I'd want to address 10% of the market, when I doing a pretty good job addressing 90% of the market. This is obviously a US-centric view of the market.

I think a lot of people are going to be watching what happens with T-Mobile's move to unsubsidized phones. It's possible it could be a disruptive move. However I think that in practice it's apt to be a failure.

How are any of these options better then Apple continuing to offer last years model at a lower price? That is the question. If you cant come up with a compelling answer to that question then it isnt going to happen.

You may still save money with a plan that cheap even if you're buying a full up iPhone 5, but the price difference is no longer hidden, so cheaper phones from other manufacturers actually are cheaper all of a sudden.

I think the ultimate issue is whether the very price conscious are ever apt to buy an Apple phone when they'll always be able to get a cheap Android phone build with next to no margins for much cheaper. Apple doesn't want to get drug into the low margins area. They want to be where the money is, not the commodity market. What's happened is that the commodity phones that used to do nothing well now can have a copy of Android put on them for nothing. So its unsurprising they will. Those phones will always dominate those most concerned about price and probably most of the developing world.

I think Apple wants a slice of that pie, but only the slice where people are willing to pay a bit more for a good phone that's still affordable. Apple probably then hopes they can use their large purchasing power to get economies of scale the cheap producers can't. Knowing Cooks' genius in this regard it is possible that Apple might just get such good prices that they can eck out a reasonable margin in a segment with very low margins.

How are any of these options better then Apple continuing to offer last years model at a lower price? That is the question. If you cant come up with a compelling answer to that question then it isnt going to happen.

It isn't much to hang your hat on, but I think Apple would like to kill the 30-pin connector dead. If they continue the strategy of pushing the older models down market, they'll be looking at a product in their lineup with a 30-pin for the next two years. If they introduce a less expensive phone, they can take the iPhone 4 and 4S off the market simultaneously. That's why I think something that straddles the 4 and 4S from a manufacturing perspective could be the answer. The simpler assembly of a 3GS-style polycarbonate body (which are more rugged, in my experience, than the 4/4S glass sandwich) might do the trick. They can offer an 8MB version free with contract, and a 16GB version for $99. I imagine it would even have a retina display, since all iPhone models on the market currently do, including the free ones.

From a supply chain standpoint, there are fewer variants to manufacture simultaneously... instead of the 4 and 4S, which are identical externally but fairly different internally, you have 1 phone with different memory and radio configurations.

The more I think about it, the more a strategy to replace the 4 and 4S with a different model, that is still less capable than the 5, makes sense.

How are any of these options better then Apple continuing to offer last years model at a lower price? That is the question. If you cant come up with a compelling answer to that question then it isnt going to happen.

It isn't much to hang your hat on, but I think Apple would like to kill the 30-pin connector dead. If they continue the strategy of pushing the older models down market, they'll be looking at a product in their lineup with a 30-pin for the next two years. If they introduce a less expensive phone, they can take the iPhone 4 and 4S off the market simultaneously. That's why I think something that straddles the 4 and 4S from a manufacturing perspective could be the answer. The simpler assembly of a 3GS-style polycarbonate body (which are more rugged, in my experience, than the 4/4S glass sandwich) might do the trick. They can offer an 8MB version free with contract, and a 16GB version for $99. I imagine it would even have a retina display, since all iPhone models on the market currently do, including the free ones.

From a supply chain standpoint, there are fewer variants to manufacture simultaneously... instead of the 4 and 4S, which are identical externally but fairly different internally, you have 1 phone with different memory and radio configurations.

The more I think about it, the more a strategy to replace the 4 and 4S with a different model, that is still less capable than the 5, makes sense.

I agree with njpozner's response to BryansAccount, but I think that (s)he doesn't go far enough. I think that most of the features that I listed in the OP is an advantage:

i) Although older processors are cheap and probably easy to fabricate, they're not very power efficient. A newer processor will cost a bit more, but there will be big payoffs.ii) Lightning connector is addressed by njpozner.iii) The 4 and 4S were designed to accept 64GB flash chips of their day. I don't know whether modern, lower capacity chips might save space or power.iv) The new, thinner process will save space, but it will only be cost effective if it is now working efficiently.v) I doubt that Apple wants to be selling 3G devices.

I think that the combination of these changes would allow the phone to have a much smaller battery, reducing size and weight. What I wondered in my OP is whether all these could be packaged together to make a phone that light enough and different enough from the iPhone 5 to be worth Apple's effort. I tend to think that the answer is yes.

Using your numbers, over two years a customer would save $720, most or all of which would go for the phone.

I'm using a Nexus 4, it was half that.

dh87 wrote:

In the US the customer would be mostly locked in regardless, because of the standards issues.

My phone supports T-Mobile and AT&T bands, and T-Mobile is adding a lot of new 1900 mhz capacity in major centers that any quad band GSM phone should be able to use.

dh87 wrote:

I am not sure about your numbers, however. AFAIK, Verizon isn't offering their cheap plan any more, and ATT's cheapest plan is $70/mo (not counting their 0.3GB data plan as a serious offering). I don't know anything about the non-contract numbers.

Prepaid on AT&T would be $40/mo for 250/u/200mb or since I assume you wouldn't be happy with that, $50/mo for 250/u/1gb. I prefer the T-Mobile $30/mo 100/u/u plan. I paid $350 for the 16 gb Nexus 4, a 16 gb iPhone 5 is $200 subsidized on AT&T.

Using the prepaid AT&T plan, I'd be $330 ahead after 2 years and break even after 8 months. On T-Mobile I break even after 4 months and come out $810 ahead after 2 years.

That might not be exactly comparable point for point, but it's not like this is bottom of the barrel trash that is completely irrelevant to Apple's thinking. The bottom of the barrel for Android phones is more like $100 these days. It's a high end, high quality phone on an unlimited data plan at near half the upfront cost and near half the 2 year cost. That's pretty damn good value.

Apple certainly wants to stop selling 30-pin connector iPhones as early as possible.A simple projection for the next iPhone revision could be: the iPhone 4 is ejected, the 5 is sold cheaper with the 5S on top (all as "usual"), and they go the simple route to modify the 4S with a lightning connector, a bit like they did the iPad 3 -> 4, and sell it at $400 (but is that cheap enough?).

Or they could rebuild everything:

Apple also has to better support multi-resolution on iOS, if they plan to continue on a long term to sell different sizes of iPhone (and iPad),I don't know if AutoLayout last year on iOS was a first step in that direction, but they will need to fix this if they are not just transitionning and stopping to 16:9 screens at 326 ppi.

If they are able to put in dev's hands tools to build UIs for their apps capable to adapt (not scale) to different resolutions and aspect ratios, for a given pixel density and then in a given range of size (respectively pocket 3.5"-5" and tablet 8"-10"), it could make a lot more of things possible in the future:

- a small plastic iPhone 3.5" 3:2 (at 326 ppi, 960x640), made as cheap as possible (under $400) on the basis of the internal of a 4S or a 5,- a large high-end iPhone 4.5" 16:9 (at 326 ppi, 1280x720), the natural evolution of the 5 in larger with all the new stuffs,- transitionnally, the 4" iPhone 5 eventually still sold in the middle for the next year only (different iPhone models too close in size is probably not in their plans)

(And on a further iteration, they could switch to retina 3x screens for their two iPhone models with ~500 ppi screens)

- and incidentally on the iPad front, when battery and screen tech will make it possible for the mini, both iPad models could switch to 326 ppi screens, at 2048x1536 and 2560x1920.

Another completely different approach, avoiding problems of app support for different resolutions:A bit like they did with the iPad mini in 2012 sharing the same resolution with the other size, they could introduce a 4.9" 1136x640 (264 ppi) cheaper plastic iPhone along their high-end 4" line. Current 4" apps should run still nicely on it.But that's no more an iPhone mini.

I think a lot of people are going to be watching what happens with T-Mobile's move to unsubsidized phones. It's possible it could be a disruptive move. However I think that in practice it's apt to be a failure.

They'll let you pay for phones by installments to mitigate sticker shock, but even then your bill drops by ~$20/mo once the device is paid off.

ClarkGoble wrote:

I think the ultimate issue is whether the very price conscious are ever apt to buy an Apple phone when they'll always be able to get a cheap Android phone build with next to no margins for much cheaper. Apple doesn't want to get drug into the low margins area. They want to be where the money is, not the commodity market. What's happened is that the commodity phones that used to do nothing well now can have a copy of Android put on them for nothing. So its unsurprising they will. Those phones will always dominate those most concerned about price and probably most of the developing world.

Well, let's be careful of which phones we're talking about. These days there's Android phones down near $100 and I agree Apple won't bother with those.

There's also damn good phones under $400. A Nexus 4 is $300 or $350 if you can get one. I think we're going to see a lot more comparable phones at similar prices this quarter. If I have a $300 phone on a $30/mo plan and I don't feel like I'm missing anything compared to an iPhone 5 on AT&T, that's where it ought to get Apple's attention, because that's amazing value even for people who are willing to spend more. Let's be absolutely clear on this, this is a pronounced drop in what it costs for high end phones on good plans.

And obviously Apple won't match this dollar for dollar, but I think they can get close enough with an excellent phone and still have excellent margins. What I think leaves them vulnerable is continuing to rely on subsidies to conceal the premium when the market has a very pronounced trend away from that even in the US. This doesn't mean abandoning what makes Apple Apple, just getting ahead of a trend that's going to be disruptive to them if they don't address it. If someone else can make a good phone for $300, I don't think there's any doubt Apple can make a phone that would motivate people to pay $400 that would be plenty profitable.

It stands to reason the 4/4s could become the "entry level" handset soon. Besides, why would you make the phone conceivably worse? Also considering the upsizing of most handsets I doubt the iPhone would get any smaller.

In the US, there's no advantage in such a phone having a price below $500

Nexus 4.

dh87 wrote:

I doubt that carrier marketing has a substantial impact on Apple sales. Apple can sell good products, with or without help from the carriers.

Apple needs all the help it can get if it wants to retake the lead from Google.

iljitsch wrote:

Obviously it wouldn't need 4G

That's a non-starter. Carriers (in the US at least) are anxious to move to VoLTE as soon as possible so they can reuse older spectrum.

HellDiver wrote:

All they need to do is re-case the 3GS. It's a perfectly good phone, all they need to do is update the case.

In 2009 it was. Releasing a phone in 2013 with similar specs would be a greater failure than Microsoft Kin.

njpozner wrote:

I was thinking something similar. Put the guts of the 4S, with a process-shrunk A5 and a lightning connector, in a case derived from the 3GS and you'd have a very compelling product that is fairly cheap and easy to manufacture by iPhone standards.

It would have to be significantly cheaper than a Nexus 4.

chleuasme wrote:

- a large high-end iPhone 4.5" 16:9 (at 326 ppi, 1280x720), the natural evolution of the 5 in larger with all the new stuffs,

In the US, there's no advantage in such a phone having a price below $500

Nexus 4.

An unlocked Nexus 4 costs $500 according to Amazon, allowing it to sell for ~$0 with a contract, I assume. A $400 phone would also cost $0 and would come with the same contract.

avenger512 wrote:

dh87 wrote:

I doubt that carrier marketing has a substantial impact on Apple sales. Apple can sell good products, with or without help from the carriers.

Apple needs all the help it can get if it wants to retake the lead from Google.

Apple isn't interested in selling the most phones; they're interested in making the best phones and thereby making lots of money. They are fulfilling those objectives.

In any case, most people don't like or trust their carriers. Most people like Apple products and trust Apple to have made good choices. The combination of those things makes Apple a much more effective promoter of its products than the carriers.